Jennifer Lynn Schiefer1, Rebekka Rath2, Elena Ahrens3, Daniel Grigutsch4, Ingo Gräff4, Jan-Philipp Stromps3, Paul Christian Fuchs3, Alexandra Schulz3. 1. Clinic of Plastic, Reconstructive, Hand and Burn Surgery, Hospital Cologne Merheim, University of Witten-Herdecke, Germany. Electronic address: schiefer.jennifer@gmail.com. 2. Clinic for Hand and Plastic Surgery, Orthopedic Clinic Markgröningen, Germany. 3. Clinic of Plastic, Reconstructive, Hand and Burn Surgery, Hospital Cologne Merheim, University of Witten-Herdecke, Germany. 4. Clinic of Anesthesiology at the University Hospital Bonn, Germany.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: The aesthetic outcome after burn of exposed areas such as the hand and face is of high importance. A number of wound dressings used for the treatment of superficial and partial thickness burns promise rapid wound healing and reduced scarring. Previously, wound healing of hands and faces with superficial burns treated with Dressilk® compared to Biobrane® was evaluated intra-individually with similar results. Nevertheless, up to date objective information regarding the scarring after superficial burns treated with Dressilk® does not exist. METHODS: Therefore, 30 patients with superficial burns of the hand and face that were treated with Dressilk® and Biobrane® simultaneously were included in the study. An objective scar evaluation was performed analyzing melanin and erythema levels, skin elasticity, trans-epidermal water loss and scar perfusion three and six and 12 months after injury. Furthermore, a subjective scar evaluation was performed with the patient and observer scar assessment scale (POSAS) and the Vancouver scar scale (VSS). RESULTS: Dressilk® and Biobrane® both lead to an aesthetic pleasing outcome after superficial burns of the hands and faces. Regarding the objective scar evaluation only trans-epidermal water loss of burned hands after 6 months showed significant differences between the two dressings. However, these differences were not detected in the 12-month follow up examination. In the subjective scar evaluation no statistical differences could be found between the dressings. All patients stated high satisfaction of scar quality. CONCLUSION: Dressilk® is an interesting alternative to Biobrane® for the treatment of superficial burns of aesthetic and functional important areas.
INTRODUCTION: The aesthetic outcome after burn of exposed areas such as the hand and face is of high importance. A number of wound dressings used for the treatment of superficial and partial thickness burns promise rapid wound healing and reduced scarring. Previously, wound healing of hands and faces with superficial burns treated with Dressilk® compared to Biobrane® was evaluated intra-individually with similar results. Nevertheless, up to date objective information regarding the scarring after superficial burns treated with Dressilk® does not exist. METHODS: Therefore, 30 patients with superficial burns of the hand and face that were treated with Dressilk® and Biobrane® simultaneously were included in the study. An objective scar evaluation was performed analyzing melanin and erythema levels, skin elasticity, trans-epidermal water loss and scar perfusion three and six and 12 months after injury. Furthermore, a subjective scar evaluation was performed with the patient and observer scar assessment scale (POSAS) and the Vancouver scar scale (VSS). RESULTS: Dressilk® and Biobrane® both lead to an aesthetic pleasing outcome after superficial burns of the hands and faces. Regarding the objective scar evaluation only trans-epidermal water loss of burned hands after 6 months showed significant differences between the two dressings. However, these differences were not detected in the 12-month follow up examination. In the subjective scar evaluation no statistical differences could be found between the dressings. All patients stated high satisfaction of scar quality. CONCLUSION: Dressilk® is an interesting alternative to Biobrane® for the treatment of superficial burns of aesthetic and functional important areas.
Authors: Jennifer Lynn Schiefer; Janine Andreae; Paul Christian Fuchs; Rolf Lefering; Paul Immanuel Heidekrueger; Alexandra Schulz; Mahsa Bagheri Journal: J Clin Med Date: 2022-05-18 Impact factor: 4.964